After UCI’s Katusha decision, what next for Paolini?

The situation surrounding Luca Paolini’s positive test for cocaine at last year’s Tour de France is undoubtedly a complicated one.

Tuesday’s decision by the UCI’s Disciplinary Commission, to waive a potential suspension of the Katusha team over the positive cases involving Luca Paolini and Eduard Vorganov, prompted a fair amount of questions — and debate.

Some agreed with the decision not to enforce anti-doping regulation 7.12.1, which states that teams can face bans of between 15 and 45 days when two members test positive within a 12 month period.

According to the commission’s findings, Paolini’s positive test for cocaine should not be treated like other substances as it was recreational.

It was, said the commission, something the team had no involvement in, and therefore other riders shouldn’t be held to account.

However others had a completely different reaction, saying that the decision was flawed. They pointed to the stimulatory nature of cocaine, which could boost performance. Paolini has admitted that he was using cocaine to counterbalance the effects of a sleeping-pill addiction.

A number of people debating the issue on social media went as far as to say that Katusha owner Igor Makarov’s backing of Brian Cookson during the 2013 UCI elections, and his presence on the UCI’s powerful Management Commission, may have played a factor.

Whatever your position on this — and, according to a CyclingTips Twitter poll, 59 percent of you disagree with the final verdict — it’s worth considering how the Disciplinary Commission’s decision could impact Paolini’s own upcoming sanction, which is currently in the hands of the UCI’s Anti-Doping Tribunal.

Does Tuesday’s ruling mean, that because the UCI viewed Paolini’s positive test as “recreational,” rather than performance-enhancing, that he will get a rap on the knuckles and be back in action soon?

We don’t know, as this case is unprecented. But we’re not convinced the decision of the UCI’s Disciplinary Commission will influence the decision making of the UCI’s Anti-Doping Tribunal. Here’s why.

Different rules, different consequences

Consider Paolini’s situation. He’s a sportsman bound by the WADA Code. He tested positive for cocaine in a test taken on the fourth stage of last year’s Tour de France. The
WADA Code lays out rules and penalties for athletes who are competing in WADA-affiliated sports, with very clear guidelines as to what action should be followed.

Now look at Katusha’s own situation. As a team it isn’t bound by the WADA Code. Instead, it — and other UCI-registered teams — are governed by UCI regulation 7.12.1. This was introduced in January 2015, and echoed an earlier regulation adopted by the MPCC anti-doping organisation.

Under the UCI rule, two positive tests for a prohibited method or prohibited substance can lead to a team sanction.

Specifically, the regulation states that they will be “suspended from participation in any International Event for a period determined by the President of the UCI Disciplinary Commission or a member of the Disciplinary Commission, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The suspension shall not be less than 15 days and not more than 45 days.”

The first Katusha rider, Paolini, tested positive during last year’s Tour de France, and has since admitted taking the substance in question.

Last week Eduard Vorganov tested positive for the substance Meldonium/Mildronate, bringing the number of cases in one 12-month period to two, and thus triggering the disciplinary commission.

However that regulation also lays out the grounds whereby such a sanction can be dismissed. Here’s the relevant section:

The Decision of the UCI Disciplinary Commission is immediately enforceable and cannot be appealed, neither by the Team nor by individual Team members. The Team suspended may however file a request for a lifting of the suspension before the UCI Disciplinary Commission. The suspension shall be lifted if the Team establishes that a) at least one anti-doping rule violation has no reasonable prospect of being upheld, or b) at least one Rider bears No Fault or Negligence for the anti-doping rule violation asserted, or c) at least one anti-doping rule violation was committed by the Rider with no involvement of any Team member or staff and that the Team applied all due diligence and took all measures that could reasonably be expected in order to avoid the commission of anti-doping rule violations.

According to the Disciplinary Commission, the Paolini case muddies the waters in terms of an automatic sanction.

Firstly, it believes that Paolini’s use of cocaine, “was not related to an intention to influence sporting performance but was rather taken on a ‘recreational’ basis.”

Secondly, it said that it believed a suspension relating to the use of a social drug could not be reconciled with the aim of the regulation.

“Even if, strictly speaking, such a case falls within the application of the anti-doping rules for the rider concerned, the imposition of negative consequences for the whole team would be inappropriate and disproportionate,” it argued.

Thirdly, the Commission concluded that article 7.12.1 is intended to punish teams who either lack control of their athletes in this area, don’t do enough to fight doping or are involved in what the commission terms ‘even worse scenarios.’

The latter, presumably, refers to systematic doping with a team’s involvement.

Because of all that, the President of the Commission said that he considered it ‘disproportionate’ if the team were to be suspended “on the basis that one of its members [uses] a social drug, the consumption of which is not related to sporting performance.”

Hence the green light for Katusha to continue.

Is the conclusion accurate? That’s a matter of debate, and there will inevitably be arguments for and against. But let’s contrast that with the case of the Androni Sidermec team, which was handed a 30-day suspension last July by the UCI’s Disciplinary Commission.

This case involved two riders, Davide Appollonio and Fabio Taborre, who tested positive for EPO and the developmental blood booster FG-4592, respectively.

While the substances are more serious than those involved in the Katusha case, penalising the Italian squad appears to indicate it has some blame in the matter.

However, is it any more culpable than the Russian team? A Katusha team doctor has acknowledged that he knew that Paolini had a long-running addiction to sleeping tablets. Did team doctors monitor Paolini to make sure he wasn’t taking other substances? Should the team, perhaps, have instructed him to sit out the Tour and other major races until he had this under control?

The debates will continue, at least in the short term.

What does this mean for Paolini?

And so, back to the WADA Code. As noted, the team isn’t bound to it in any way; its riders are, however.

The WADA Code lays out various banned substances and methods, with cocaine falling under category S6, that of stimulants banned in competition. It makes a distinction between these and so-called specified substances, which are often treated less seriously.

According to Paolini, he took cocaine while training for the Tour de France. He said it occurred in mid-June, weeks before his July 7 test, which delivered an adverse analytical finding, i.e. a positive result.

If Paolini sticks to this account, he will have to satisfy the disciplinary commission overseeing his personal case that the residue from that ingestion was still in his system weeks later.

Given that cocaine has a half-life of 30 minutes and commonly leaves the system within a number of days, he may struggle to show this is the case.

Furthermore, he may also face questions as to why the substance didn’t show up in the pre-Tour doping controls carried out on those selected to ride the event.

If it is indeed determined that he ingested the substance during the Tour, Paolini could yet face a lengthy ban.

While CyclingTips has been unable to find recent examples of riders testing positive for cocaine in competition — Tom Boonen’s 2008 and 2009 incidents were out of competition — USADA’s records for all sports show a typical sanction ranging between one to two years.

WADA’s own rules provide for bans of up to four years for serious substances, although Paolini’s insistence that his cocaine use was recreational rather than for performance enhancement could affect this. His legal team will no doubt point to the UCI Disciplinary Committee’s deeming of his use as recreational, rather than performance enhancing.

Still, given the clear WADA declaration that cocaine is a banned substance in competition, plus the timing of his positive test, it is extremely difficult to envision Paolini not incurring a sanction.

His team may be free to ride, but it’s far too soon to draw the same conclusions about the Italian.

Paolini should go back to the forest and his first career as a lumberjack.

Robert

Just hope the guy gets some help…from the accounts of the situation that lead to him using, he certainly seemed to be in a bad place.

Homer Thompson

Cocaine use, with a sleeping pill addiction, is less serious than EPO and a blood boosting substance?

Samaway

That wasn’t their decision, just that they are not performance enhancers…

jules

just because something is serious doesn’t mean it’s automatically best dealt with by issuing penalties

Luke Bartlett

I agree with the decision. For example, in the AFL, players are given strikes for illicit drugs which are not ‘performance enhancing’. I hope Paolini can get the help he obviously needs during his suspension; reading Marco Pantani’s book, and we all know how that ended.

Nitro

There’s UCI’s Disciplinary Commission, there’s the WADA code, there’s the UCI regulations, and then there’s the court of public opinion.

When is someone in a high enough position in the sport going to realise, and take responsibility for, the fact that incidents like this and the way they’re handled are the (recurring) equivalent of the OJ Simpson case?

In the court of public opinion, the original OJ case just made the (entire) system look dumb…

There’s no parallels between the cases, but the point I’m trying to make is that there are the power plays and the organisational intricacies and regulations, but at the bottom line, this just isn’t a good look, and I’m not sure the “big boys” get the “big picture”…. They’re certainly not acting as if they do…

jules

just a small point Shane, the WADA code has provisions that apply to both individual athletes and teams. I’m pretty sure team-based doping is an offence under the WADA code. however, I’d say the hurdle for finding a team guilty under the WADA code is higher than for the UCI regulation that makes teams vicariously liable for team members’ doping. team-based doping under the WADA code means doping overseen by a team (officials). so you’re correct that they apply differently.

I think the UCI has applied the regulation appropriately here. the intent of the regulation is to give the UCI more teeth in holding teams accountable for doping ostensibly committed by individual riders, but for which a pattern of doping suggests the team has been either encouraging it or turning a blind eye.

this circumstance seems different to me. the type of intervention needed by a team (Katusha) to manage Paolini’s insomnia and associated substance abuse is different to that required to manage performance-based doping, e.g. EPO. so the detection of two quite different categories of doping doesn’t amount to strong evidence of a systemic failure by Katusha to manage either type – i.e. 1 of each.

furthermore, the issue of elite athlete insomnia and sleeping pill abuse is well established to be endemic in the pro peloton. while the abuse of EPO has (maybe?) been addressed to a degree where individual cases can and should be punished on an individual basis, that is not the case for sleeping pills. if you’re going to hold Katusha accountable for failing to manage that in its team – then by rights so should all the other teams be similarly held to account.

the use of cocaine by Paolini is arguably a point of differentiation between his and other riders’ sleeping pill abuse, but really it’s part of the same problem. the substance should not be the focus.

Dave

But the purpose, ostensibly, of the rule that says teams shall (not *may*) be suspended for 15-45 days is not to be a sanction, but a temporary benching for the purpose of the management to spend some time focusing on getting their house in order without the distraction of races.

Don’t forget this is actually the third positive in a year (2x EPO, 1x white line fever) and that this is the second time the rule has been bent in their favour in the last year. The team suspension rule refers to doping notifications, not samples, and so they should be suspended for the Caruso and Vorganov EPO positives even if the Paolini test was ignored.

It will be interesting to see what loophole they come up with the third time – because there will be a next time.

We’re not hearing much from Jonathan Vaughters about this, I wonder why?

jules

I just don’t believe Paolini’s cocaine habit is relevant to why this rule was introduced. You can argue it in procedural terms “it’s still a positive” etc. but I tend to look at regulations more from the perspective of their underlying purpose, not just the mechanical interpretation. I’m unsure a suspension here would serve much useful purpose.

Dave

That sounds like a perfect example of the reason there is a provision allowing an application for the suspension to be lifted once the team has conducted an internal investigation or called in external auditors.

Even if the Paolini positive is ignored, they should still be benched for a few weeks over the Caruso and Vorganov tests, both of which were EPO and show there is a long-term problem at Katusha.

jules

I have more sympathy for your argument on the double EPO positives. I’m arguing specifically around how it is best to treat what amounts to a rider health/welfare issue that involves banned substances. The AFL does a decent job with its 3 strikes policy for illicit (not performance-enhancing) drug use – not perfect, but at least they recognise it as a health issue, not a cheating one.

Dave

I’d respect that ‘cocaine is not real doping’ argument a lot more if it was merely banned under each sport’s recreational drug policy (i.e. banned because it’s socially unacceptable) and not included in the WADA list of banned stimulants.

An AFL player testing positive for cocaine on match day like Paolini did would come under the WADA rules, not the AFL’s recreational drug policy. Does cycling even have a recreational drug policy?

jules

the original CT article states “a rider can prove the substance was taken prior to starting the race and that the traces have remained in his system until then, he could potentially achieve a reduction in his suspension.”

I suspect Paolini is going (coming?) down, as he has used coke in-competition. the fact that he wasn’t intending to use it as a performance-enhancer (in the conventional sense) doesn’t matter much under the WADA code. but there’s the clear distinction between Paolini being subject to the WADA code and Katusha being subject to the separate UCI regulation that we are discussing.

Pretty simple to me – Androni = small fry with limited legal means to challenge UCI. Katusha = big team with big influence and legal means.
Same as it ever was – Katusha beat the UCI back in 2013 after being kicked out of the top-tier. I hope Paolini can get help with his addictions, but he ought to hang up the wheels – he’s almost 40 now.

George Darroch

It’s about time he was allowed to race. He’s cleaner than the rest of his team and the UCI has no issue with that.

Mikael_L

So if the coke was actually only in his bloodstream in the lead up to the tour, I wonder how that tainted blood got back in his system during the tour?

Ed Goss

I might be alone in this but I’d say he was using it as a performance enhancer. We know he was using cocaine to counterbalance his sleeping pill addiction ( an addiction the team knew about). That means, to me, that if he hadn’t been using cocaine he would have been half asleep on the bike all day and his performance would have suffered. Using cocaine to overcome that IS performance enhancement. Did the team doctors not think through the consequences of the sleeping pill addiction? What we do about it is a different question – I think he needs treatment, and any sanctions should be at the team level – not at the rider level.

WELCOME TO VELOCLUB INSIDER

VeloClub Insider is an exclusive membership that gains you first access to our best stories,
exclusive content curated just for you, as well as rides, events, training plans, pro-deals and more
that will connect you with a likeminded community of cycling enthusiasts.

HELP US CUSTOMISE YOUR EXPERIENCE

CONTENT PREFERENCES:

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT VELOCLUB INSIDER?

VeloClub Insider is an exclusive membership that gains you first access to our best stories,
exclusive content curated just for you, as well as rides, events, training plans, pro-deals and more
that will connect you with a likeminded community of cycling enthusiasts.